Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
- Mars Rover: Stuck in the Mud
- Tranquility Base
- NASA's Ares 1-X Test: The View From Above
- The Yes Men
- The Missing Link -- Not
- Moon Crash Kicked Up Plume After All
- Moon Crash: Where's the Water?
- Green Apple: Firm is Latest to Leave U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Recovery.gov: Your Tax Dollars at Work
- Climate: Power Companies Quit U.S Chamber of Commerce
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
A 'Cure' for the Earth
September 26, 2007 3:12 PM
Gaia. When James Lovelock, the Oxford professor, first put forth the notion in the 1960s, it was either ignored or derided as some weird new-age religion.
The Gaia theory is hard to sum up in a brief way, but Lovelock suggested that we think of the whole earth as a living entity, with all its parts--living or not--contributing to its stability.
"We now see that the air, the ocean and the soil are much more than a mere environment for life; they are a part of life itself," he's written. "Thus the air is to life just as is the fur to a cat or the nest for a bird. Not living but something made by living things to protect against an otherwise hostile world."
Lovelock has gotten increased attention--along with some continued derision--from environmental scientists over the years. Now, with a brief letter to Nature, he and his colleague Chris Rapley invite more of each. Rapley is director of the British Antarctic Survey and the Science Museum in London.
"Sir," they write, "We propose a way to stimulate the Earth's capacity to cure itself, as an emergency treatment for the pathology of global warming."
And what might that way be? They suggest giant tubes--100 to 300 meters long, standing vertically in the world's oceans, to draw up nutrients from the deep and create algae blooms on the surface. The algae would absorb carbon dioxide, and create compounds that would seed the formation of sunlight-reflecting clouds in the air.
"Such an approach may fail, perhaps on engineering or economic grounds," they write. "And the impact on ocean acidification will need to be taken into account.
"But the stakes are so high that we put forward the general concept of using the Earth system's own energy for amelioration. The removal of 500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide from the air by human endeavour is beyond our current technological capability. If we can't 'heal the planet' directly, we may be able to help the planet heal itself."
The full text of their letter is HERE. And Nature has a news piece HERE.
There have been a lot of large-scale geoengineering ideas before--dropping iron into the oceans as a nutrient, launching giant sunshades into orbit--but this one seems new.
Attention or derision? What ought this to bring?
September 26, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (14)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
this seems like an interesting idea, but the algae blooms will also hurt the ocean. once the algae dies, it will remove oxygen from the already low amount in the ocean. that will cause death in fish population and other difficulties.
Posted by: derek | Sep 26, 2007 4:25:16 PM
300 meters of giant tubing: $40000000000
switching all cars to ethonal or electric:
$6000000000
Sitting back on a beach in alaska getting a tan:
Priceless.
Posted by: adam | Sep 26, 2007 6:59:07 PM
I like the idea, but were would the used up algae go once it is finished beig used? also were would all the money needed come from to make this happen and what would happen to the animals in the sea?
Posted by: Ingrid | Sep 26, 2007 7:12:15 PM
or ocean
Posted by: Ingrid | Sep 26, 2007 7:13:12 PM
What would happen is like what happens off Peru, huge algal blooms, lots of plankton eating the algae, lots of fish eating the plankton, and fishermen catching the plentiful fish. Upwelling happens naturally in some places and creates bountiful seas and lots of algae sucking CO2 from the air. When they die, that carbon goes to the bottom of the ocean to the sediment. It's relatively harmless, unless they pumped deep ocean water near a coral reef, which would be destroyed by all the algae.
Posted by: digapony | Sep 26, 2007 11:47:51 PM
im no expert on global warming seeing that im only in biology, but i think the tubes are interesting.Taking in CO2 gasses from blooms all in the ocean can be helpful because the algae will give oxygen off. Though there must be a better way. All People need to start thinking now before it is too late.
Posted by: Trey | Sep 27, 2007 1:16:33 AM
Well God forbid we Americans try to even THINK about stopping the cause first. "Maybe we can drive SUVs and still fix the planet!" I also like that when the northern passage melts/melted to allow shipping changes all anyone thinks about is GETTING THE OIL!
Posted by: horngreen | Sep 27, 2007 1:32:14 AM
The only sure cure for the ills of this planet is to remove the chief irritant. And you know what the chief irritant is. Good ol' humanity. Since we've shown no evolution (yet), we're in deep trouble. We're still raping the land and the planet, and show little signs of progress in our supposed stewardship. So far, our efforts are few and pathetically inadequate. If we ever do get serious about it, it will probably be just before the lights go out for good.
Posted by: Andy | Sep 27, 2007 7:58:34 AM
horngreen
Your correct, we destroy places to make them habitat for ourselves. "You are a Virus." to quote the Matrix. Eventually, we will destroy ourselves or the Earth.
The sea rise will force people form there homes, destroying infastructure, depleating fresh water and eventually leading to a war for resources. This planet was not designed to support 6 Billion People, and counting, by the time we get to 8 Billion, the Glaciers couldbe gone. The Planet will protect itself from us. Just giver her time.....
Posted by: GreenHorn | Sep 27, 2007 9:20:27 AM
After all that algae settles to the bottom, it will decompose into methane...a greenhouse gas more potent than C02. If we could harvest that algae and remove it from the ocean, then we could have a biofuel that does not require introducing more sequestered carbon from oil/gas/coal.
Posted by: JC | Sep 27, 2007 10:07:33 AM
Yes, let's spend $40B on giant tubes, to maybe solve the problem of global warming, which may or may not exist, which may or may not be a huge problem even if it does. Sounds like a fine idea... as long you make the funding voluntary. Why don't we set up a global lottery and let the proceeds go to hair brained experiments.
Posted by: Gene | Sep 27, 2007 10:44:18 AM
Sounds like an intriguing idea, but, before I could fully support it, I'd need to know (or at least have some good scientific guesses) as to what would happen. We know that when one variable in an ecosphere such as ours is altered, it will also alter other factors, some of which were previously unconsidered. If the process would work as well as digapony described in his comments, then I'd have no problem, no matter the cost.
Posted by: chuck | Sep 27, 2007 2:30:44 PM
We got 2 choices: Bail or go down with the ship.
Posted by: Andy | Sep 27, 2007 4:50:55 PM
I AM NOT PUT UP A JOKE HERE Can't we snow blow mountains of snow to keep ice there. By pulling water from the sea an making snow the snow turns to ice to help slow down the melting?
Posted by: Rodger Canterbury Sr | Sep 27, 2007 8:28:56 PM
Post a comment
